Crim Law (1st Half)

1. A man had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. They therefore arranged to have him flown to a city to have the operation performed. The man's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction which required postponing the journey. The plane on which the man was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, the man's heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died. If charged with criminal homicide, the nephew should be found

Guilty

Not guilty, because his act did not hasten the deceased's death, but instead prolonged it by one day

Not guilty, because the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness

Not guilty, because the poison was not the sole cause of the death

The correct answer is guilty. The nephew should be found guilty because his act of poisoning the man ultimately resulted in his death, even though it may have been delayed by one day due to the reaction caused by the poison. The fact that the man was already suffering from a fatal illness does not absolve the nephew of responsibility for his death. Additionally, the poison may not have been the sole cause of death, but it was a contributing factor that ultimately led to the man's heart attack and demise.

Explanation

The correct answer is guilty. The nephew should be found guilty because his act of poisoning the man ultimately resulted in his death, even though it may have been delayed by one day due to the reaction caused by the poison. The fact that the man was already suffering from a fatal illness does not absolve the nephew of responsibility for his death. Additionally, the poison may not have been the sole cause of death, but it was a contributing factor that ultimately led to the man's heart attack and demise.

2. An eight-year old Girl Scout came to defendants home to try to sell defendant cookies. As the girl scout reached into her bag to get the cookie catalog, defendant thought the girl scout was reaching for a gun and punched the girl scout, injuring her. Defendant is charged with battery, which is defined as "any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another." Should the defendant be convicted of battery?

Yes, because defendants mistake was unreasonable

Yes, because there is no defense to a strict liability crime

No, because any mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime.

The defendant should be convicted of battery because their mistake in thinking that the girl scout was reaching for a gun was unreasonable. Battery is defined as the willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another person, and in this case, the defendant's actions of punching the girl scout and causing injury were not justified. The fact that the defendant misinterpreted the girl scout's actions does not excuse their use of force, as it was an unreasonable mistake.

Explanation

The defendant should be convicted of battery because their mistake in thinking that the girl scout was reaching for a gun was unreasonable. Battery is defined as the willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon another person, and in this case, the defendant's actions of punching the girl scout and causing injury were not justified. The fact that the defendant misinterpreted the girl scout's actions does not excuse their use of force, as it was an unreasonable mistake.

3. The state has the following hit and run statute in effect: "Any driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident or collision resulting in injury or death to a human being shall immediately stop his or her vehicle at the scene of such accident of collision, render necessary aid to the injured party, and furnish the police or other person(s) at the scene with his or her contact information." One afternoon, Brooke was riding her bicycle along the road. A van driven by Sam accidentally struck Brooke's bicycle, and she was knocked off and thrown onto the sidewalk. Although she received some minor scrapes and bruises, Brooke was not seriously injured. Following the accident, Sam sped away. Seconds later, however, a tractor-trailer crashed into a Ford Pinto near where Brooke was sitting on the sidewalk. The Pinto's gas tank exploded and engulfed both vehicles in flames. Brooke was killed in the explosion. If Sam is charged with Brooke's death, Sam should be found:

Guilty, because Same unlawfully fled the scene of the accident in violation of her statutory duty

Guilty, because Sam's failure to render aid to Brooke would make Same criminally responsible for Brooke's death

Not guilty, because but for Same hitting Brooke, she would not have been near the explosion

Not guilty, because Brooke's death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Sam's actions

Sam should be found not guilty because Brooke's death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Sam's actions. Although Sam unlawfully fled the scene of the accident, it cannot be reasonably predicted that seconds later a tractor-trailer would crash into a Ford Pinto and cause an explosion that would result in Brooke's death. Sam's failure to render aid to Brooke may be morally wrong, but it does not make Sam criminally responsible for Brooke's death.

Explanation

Sam should be found not guilty because Brooke's death was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Sam's actions. Although Sam unlawfully fled the scene of the accident, it cannot be reasonably predicted that seconds later a tractor-trailer would crash into a Ford Pinto and cause an explosion that would result in Brooke's death. Sam's failure to render aid to Brooke may be morally wrong, but it does not make Sam criminally responsible for Brooke's death.

4. Defendant was fired from her job. One night she returned to her workplace after it was closed and took a laptop computer that she had forgotten and believed had been given to her before she was fired. Defendant is charged with burglary. If the jury believes Defendant, should it convict her of burglary?

Yes, because defendant's belief that the company would give her a laptop before firing her is unreasonable

Yes, because burglary is a strict liability crime

No, because defendant made a mistake of fact

No, because generally mistake of law is not a defense.

The correct answer is No, because defendant made a mistake of fact. This means that the defendant genuinely believed that the laptop had been given to her before she was fired, even though her belief was mistaken. Mistake of fact can be a defense in criminal cases if it negates the required mental state for the crime, which in this case is the intent to commit burglary. Since the defendant did not have the intent to commit burglary, she should not be convicted of the crime.

Explanation

The correct answer is No, because defendant made a mistake of fact. This means that the defendant genuinely believed that the laptop had been given to her before she was fired, even though her belief was mistaken. Mistake of fact can be a defense in criminal cases if it negates the required mental state for the crime, which in this case is the intent to commit burglary. Since the defendant did not have the intent to commit burglary, she should not be convicted of the crime.

5. Bernie is a stockbroker who handled investments for Veronica, who trusted Bernie with a large amount of her savings. Bernie committed securities fraud and Veronica lost her money. Although she was only 35 years old, Veronica committed suicide when she found out about her financial loss. Did Bernie cause Veronica's death

Yes, because Veronica committing suicide was a foreseeable consequence of Bernie losing a large amount of her savings

Yes, because but for Bernie committing securities fraud, Veronica would not have committed suicide.

No, because investors know the risks of trusting their money to someone else

No, because Bernie's acts were not the proximate cause of Veronica's death

The correct answer is No, because Bernie's acts were not the proximate cause of Veronica's death. While Bernie's actions in committing securities fraud may have led to Veronica losing her money, it cannot be directly linked as the cause of her suicide. Proximate cause refers to the direct cause and effect relationship between an action and its consequences. In this case, there may have been other underlying factors contributing to Veronica's decision to commit suicide, and it cannot be solely attributed to Bernie's actions.

Explanation

The correct answer is No, because Bernie's acts were not the proximate cause of Veronica's death. While Bernie's actions in committing securities fraud may have led to Veronica losing her money, it cannot be directly linked as the cause of her suicide. Proximate cause refers to the direct cause and effect relationship between an action and its consequences. In this case, there may have been other underlying factors contributing to Veronica's decision to commit suicide, and it cannot be solely attributed to Bernie's actions.

6. Defendant shoots Victim in the chest at close range. Victim is rushed to the hospital where doctors frantically try to save his life. Although Victim most likely would have died shortly from the gunshot wound even with perfect care, one of the doctors was negligent and Victim died on the operating table. Did the defendant cause the victims death?

Yes, because victim's death was a foreseeable consequence of the shooting

No, because the doctor technically caused victim to die, not the defendant

No, because it is impossible to tell exactly what caused victim's death

The correct answer is yes because the victim's death was a foreseeable consequence of the shooting. Shooting someone in the chest at close range is likely to cause severe harm or death, and in this case, the victim died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound. Even if the doctor was negligent, the initial cause of the victim's death was the gunshot inflicted by the defendant.

Explanation

The correct answer is yes because the victim's death was a foreseeable consequence of the shooting. Shooting someone in the chest at close range is likely to cause severe harm or death, and in this case, the victim died on the operating table due to the gunshot wound. Even if the doctor was negligent, the initial cause of the victim's death was the gunshot inflicted by the defendant.

7. Defendant is charged with violating the state bigamy statute, which states, "It is a crime to have more than one spouse simultaneously." Defendant married his neighbor four years after her husband was reported missing at sea. The first husband then was rescued and returned alive. A state statute provides that a person is presumed dead after five years of unexplained absence. The defendant believed the statutory period was three years. Should the defendant be convicted?

Yes, because defendant did not take adequate steps to learn the law.

Yes, because the bigamy statute is a strict liability crime

No, because defendant's mistake was reasonable.

The defendant should be convicted because the bigamy statute is a strict liability crime. This means that the defendant's intent or knowledge of the law is not relevant to the charge. Even though the defendant believed the statutory period for presumption of death was three years, this mistake does not excuse the violation of the bigamy statute.

Explanation

The defendant should be convicted because the bigamy statute is a strict liability crime. This means that the defendant's intent or knowledge of the law is not relevant to the charge. Even though the defendant believed the statutory period for presumption of death was three years, this mistake does not excuse the violation of the bigamy statute.

8. After being fired from his job, a defendant drank almost a quart of vodka and decided to ride the bus home. While on the bus, he saw a briefcase he mistakenly thought was his own, and began struggling with the passenger carrying the briefcase. The defendant knocked the passenger to the floor, took the briefcase and fled. The defendant was arrested and charged with robbery, which is defined as the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive accomplished by means of force or fear. The defendant should be

Acquitted, because he used no threats and was intoxicated

Acquitted, because his mistake negated the specific intent

Convicted, because his intoxication was voluntary

Convicted, because mistake is no defense to robbery

The defendant should be acquitted because his mistake negated the specific intent. In order to be charged with robbery, there must be an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. However, in this case, the defendant mistakenly believed that the briefcase was his own, therefore negating the specific intent required for a robbery charge. Additionally, the fact that the defendant was intoxicated further supports the argument that he did not have the necessary intent to commit robbery.

Explanation

The defendant should be acquitted because his mistake negated the specific intent. In order to be charged with robbery, there must be an intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. However, in this case, the defendant mistakenly believed that the briefcase was his own, therefore negating the specific intent required for a robbery charge. Additionally, the fact that the defendant was intoxicated further supports the argument that he did not have the necessary intent to commit robbery.

9. A defendant was driving his automobile at a legal speed in a residential zone. A child darted out in front of him and the defendant's car ran over and killed the child before the defendant could prevent it. The defendant's driver's license had expired three months previously; the defendant had neglected to check when it was due to expire. In this state, driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor, and the law permits prosecution for manslaughter for a killing committed during the commission of a misdemeanor or with gross negligence. On a charge of manslaughter, the defendant should be found

Guilty under the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule

Guilty, because the licensing requirements are to protect life, and failure to obey is negligence

Not guilty, because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death

Not guilty, because there was no criminal intent

The correct answer is not guilty, because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death. In this case, the defendant's expired driver's license did not directly cause the child's death. The child darted out in front of the defendant's car unexpectedly, and the defendant was unable to prevent the accident. While driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor, it cannot be considered the proximate cause of the child's death. Proximate cause refers to the direct cause that leads to the harm or injury, and in this situation, the expired license did not directly cause the accident.

Explanation

The correct answer is not guilty, because the offense was not the proximate cause of the death. In this case, the defendant's expired driver's license did not directly cause the child's death. The child darted out in front of the defendant's car unexpectedly, and the defendant was unable to prevent the accident. While driving without a valid license is a misdemeanor, it cannot be considered the proximate cause of the child's death. Proximate cause refers to the direct cause that leads to the harm or injury, and in this situation, the expired license did not directly cause the accident.

10. While testifying in a civil trial, a witness was asked on cross-examination if he had been convicted in the circuit court of stealing $200 from his employer on August 26, 2007. The witness said, "No, I have never been convicted of any crime." In fact, the witness had pleaded guilty to such a charge and had been placed on probation. The witness was then charged with perjury on the ground that his statement denying the conviction was false. A statute in the jurisdiction defines perjury as knowingly making a false statement while under oath. At trial, the state proved the witness's statement and the prior conviction. The witness testified that the attorney who represented him in the theft case had told him that, because he had been placed on probation, he had not been convicted of a crime. The witness had served his probationary period satisfactorily and been discharged from probation. The alleged advice of the attorney was incorrect. If the jury believes the witness, it should find him:

Guilty, because his mistake was one of law.

Guilty, because reliance on the advice of an attorney is not a defense

Not guilty, because the jury accepted that the witness reasonably relied on the attorney's advice

Not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state.

The correct answer is "Not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state." The witness's statement denying the conviction was false, but in order to be charged with perjury, the witness must have knowingly made a false statement while under oath. In this case, the witness testified that he believed he had not been convicted based on the advice of his attorney, which was incorrect. Therefore, the jury should find the witness not guilty because he lacked the necessary mental state to commit perjury.

Explanation

The correct answer is "Not guilty, because he lacked the necessary mental state." The witness's statement denying the conviction was false, but in order to be charged with perjury, the witness must have knowingly made a false statement while under oath. In this case, the witness testified that he believed he had not been convicted based on the advice of his attorney, which was incorrect. Therefore, the jury should find the witness not guilty because he lacked the necessary mental state to commit perjury.